Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part 2 · Chapter 7 · Section 6
Of the Witneſs pretended to be born by the Ancient Britains
COnfidence is a great matter, but when the groundleſneſs of it is diſcovered, it doth not in the leaſt advantage a cauſe, but reflect ſhame upon the owners thereof; and truly our Antagoniſt hath not wanted it, thoroughout all his Diſcourſe: And there remains yet a high degree of it in this pretence of his, that the Ancient Britains were alſo againſt Infant-Baptiſm; for in all the Volumes of Hiſtory relating to this Iſland, he can find but one ſlender hint to faſten a Conjecture (for it is no more) that the Ancient-Britains were of his ſide, and that is from a paſſage which he finds in Fabian's Cronicle which you ſhall hear by and by.
Know therefore that in the year Anno 596, Auſtin was ſent from Gregory Biſhop of Rome, with near fourty more, to preach the Goſpel to the Inhabitants of this Iſland, who were then Pagans, and as Veſtegan ſaith, without the knowledg of God ſerving, and Sacrificing unto their Idols of Thor, Woden, Friga: It pleaſed God to make them in a ſhort time inſtrumental to convert Ethelbert then King of Kent; Now after he was Baptized into the Faith of Chriſt, with an innumerable company more, (Regis ad exemplum); The foreſaid Auſtin with the concurrence of ſome others, as Mellitus and Juſtus, two ſent as Coadjutors from Gregory, aſſembled and gathered together ſome of the Britiſh Biſhops and Doctors who were then dwelling in-Wales, to which place the Britains had long before been driven, and there Profeſſed the Chriſtian Faith, and worſhipped God in purity): In this Aſſembly Auſtin charged them that they ſhould preach with him the Word of God to the Engliſh-men, and alſo that they ſhould reform certain Rites and uſages in their Church, ſpecially for that of keeping Eaſter-Day, Baptizing after the manner of Rome, and ſuch other like. To this the Britains would not agree, refuſing to leave the cuſtom which they ſo long had continued without the aſſent of them all which uſed the ſame. After that Auſtin gathered another Synod, to the which came ſeven Biſhops of Britain with the wiſeſt Men of that famous Abbie of Bangor, who took offence at Auſtin's Lordly carriage, never riſing up out of his Seat, nor giving them that reſpect they looked for. Fox, Acts and Monuments 1. Book p. 154. But Fabian expreſſeth himſelf otherwiſe as the Author notes, thus, viz. Then he ſaid to them, ſince you will not aſſent to my Hoſts generally, aſſent you to me eſpecially in three things. The firſt is that you keep Eaſter in due form and time as is ordained. The ſecond, that you give Chriſtendom to Children. And the third, that you preach to the Saxons, as I have exhorted you; and all the other debate I ſhall ſuffer you to amend amongſt your ſelves; but, ſaith Fabian, they would not. To whom then Auſtin ſaid, that if they would not take peace with their Brethren, they ſhould receive War with their Enemies, &c. From their denyal to comply with Auſtin's Propoſitions, whereof that was one the giving Chriſtendom to Children, the Author doth confidently conclude, they were againſt Infant. Baptiſm: But that there is no ſufficient ground hence for ſuch a Concluſion will appear.
1. Firſt, Becauſe no ſuch thing is mentioned by other Hiſtorians as Beda, Cretenſis in Polychron. Huntingtonenſis, which write of this matter, they ſpeak only in general. Mr. Fox relates it, viz. of Baptizing after the manner of Rome, without mentioning Children.
Secondly, Becauſe Fabian is nigro carbone notatus, lookt upon as no faithful Hiſtorian; and I find Mr. Fox in his Martyrology, refuſe to give credit to his Relation in other things, as he doth not obſerve his words of giving Chriſtendom to Children, in the Story which he gives us.
Thirdly, Neither do Fabian's Words import that they were any more againſt Baptizing Children, than Preaching of the Goſpel, for they refuſed to do both to the Saxons; and that poſſibly becauſe they would confine their labours to their own Dioceſs, and attend their own Flocks; or rather becauſe they would not Subject themſelves to the Biſhop of Rome (for they told Auſtin to his Face they owed him no Subjection) and to the imperious command of ſuch an upſtart, proud Prelat, as Auſtin was, between whom and them there had paſſed ſome heat of words, which made them riſe in diſdain, and departed thence in great diſpleaſure.
Fourthly, Or they might refuſe to give Chriſtendom to Children after Auſtin's mode with the corrupt Rites and Ceremonies in uſe by him. For other Hiſtorians expreſs the Injunction given that it ſhould be after the Roman Manner.
Fiftly, But to put it out of all doubt that the Words of Fabian was not Auſtin's, but rather Fabian's own Paraphraſe upon them, appears by what we find in the Preface to Fabian that what he relates of this matter he hath it from Beda; if therefore no ſuch paſſage can be found there, then we are ſure the Author is miſtaken in his Conjecture, and it is a great preſumption to lay ſuch ſtreſs upon a doubtful paſſage that may admit of ſeveral interpretations. We ſhall now give the Reader an account what Beda ſaith to the thing, viz. Dicebat autem eis, quod in multis quidem noſtrae conſuetndini, immô univerſalis eccleſiae contraria geritis; & tamen ſi in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis, ut Paſcha ſuo tempore celebretis, ut Miniſterium Baptizandi, quo Deo renaſcimur juxta morem ſanctae Romanae Eccleſiae, & Apoſtolicae Eccleſiae compleatis, ut genti Anglorum una nobiſcum praedicetis Verbum Domini, caeteraque agitis quamvis moribus noſtris contraria, aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus. At illi nihil horum ſe facturos, neq, Bed. Hiſt. Eccleſiaſt. Lib. 2. c. 2.illum pro Archiepiſcopo habituros eſſe reſpondebant. In Engliſh thus — But he ſaid unto them, in aſmuch as you do contrary to our cuſtom, yea to the cuſtom of the Univerſal Church, nevertheleſs, if yee will obey me only in theſe three things. ſc. That you keep Eaſter in its proper time, Adminiſter Baptiſm, whereby we are born again to God, after the manner of the Holy Church of Rome, and the Apoſtolical-Church; and preach the Word of God together with us unto the Engliſh Nation, we will patiently bear all other things which you do, although contrary to our cuſtoms. But they anſwered they would do none of theſe, or own him for Arch-Biſhop.
What now is become of Fabian, that ſandy Foundation, upon which the Author builds his belief and aſſertion, that the Ancient Britains were againſt Infant-Baptiſm. When therefore Auſtin perceived that they were ſo refractory, he told them, if they would not take Peace with their Brethren, they ſhould receive War with their Enemies
And if they diſdained to preach the way of life to the Engliſh Nation, they ſhould ſuffer by their hands the revenge of Death. And which Auſtin accompliſhed, faith Fabian, accordingly, by bringing the Saxons upon them to their utter ruine. This alſo is ſuppoſed to be another Paraphaſe of Fabian's upon Auſtin's Words, which according to*Sic que completum eſt praeſagium iſti pontifici Auguſtini. Hiſt. Bed. L. 2. c. 2. Editione whelochianâ. Bede were delivered by way of Propheſie, and not that he had an intention to revenge himſelf by bringing in Enemies upon them for their deſtruction. And we find Mr. Fox in his Act. and Mon. put a favourable conſtruction upon the Words of Auſtin, and layes moſt of the blame upon the Britiſh Biſhops, whoſe Words are; Of both theſe parties the Reader may judg what he pleaſeth, I cannot ſee but both together were to be blamed, and as I cannot but accuſe the one, ſo I cannot defend the other. Firſt, Auſtin in this matter can in no wiſe be excuſed, who ſhewed no more humility in this Aſſembly to ſeven Biſhop's coming at his commandment to the Council. Again, the Britains were aſmuch or more to blame, who ſo much neglected their Spiritual duty, in revenging their Temporal injury, that they denyed to join their helping labour to turn the Idolatrous Saxons to the way of Life and Salvation, in which reſpect all private caſes ought to give place and be forgotten. For which cauſe, it is no great marvel that theſtroak of God's puniſhment light upon them, according to Auſtin's ſaying, that if they would not take Peace, &c.
We ſhall now leave all to the Reader, and let him conſider (if it be worth his while) and weigh the Story with all circumſtances, and believe as he pleaſe; I ſhall add one thing more, and that is, Let it be taken for granted that theſe Britains were againſt Infant-Baptiſm: Nevertheleſs about 200 years before, Infant-Baptiſm was owned by Pelagius himſelf (although he denyed Original Sin) which was a Britain, and a member of the Monaſtery of Bangor, as the Author himſelf quotes in his Hiſtory of Chriſtianity pag. 11. And Mr. Tombes himſelf in pag 20. of his Anſwer ſays, the Pelagians did grant the Baptizing of Infants &c. And I have better Authority than he, even Auſtin himſelf, that had ſo much to do with Pelagius in his Book de peccato Originali Cap. 32. hath this ſaying, Pelagius etſi Baptiſma Infantium verbo concedit, re tamen ipſa tollit & negat. Though Pelagius grants Infant-Baptiſm in word, yet he takes it away and denyes it in deed. And again Cap. 18. upon the ſame point of Original Sin Auſtin hath this paſſage;— Baptizari parvulos ut in regnum Dei ingrediantur ex Pelagii Sententia. Danaei Opuſ. omnia Genevae ex Lib. Aug. de peocato Orinali. p. 692.'Twas Pelagius his opinion that Children were to be Baptized, that they may have entrance into the Kingdom of God. So ex Lib. Aug. Cap. 19. de peccato Originali; there is more. Thus then you ſee we have a more ancient Teſtimony for Infant-Baptiſm by this Britain, than thoſe whom the Author fancies ſtrongly to be againſt it; who lived 200 years nearer the Apoſtles times than they. I will conclude it in the Words of Mr. Fuller in his Church-Hiſtory: Pelagius, ſaith he, was bred in the Monaſtery of Bangor, where he lived with 2000 Monks, whoſe hands were the only Benefactors for their Bellies, Abby-labourers, not Abby-lubbers, like their Succeſſors in after Ages — Infinit are the deductions and derived conſequences of Pelagius his Errors amongſt which Mr. Fuller ſays, there are theſe two in reference to Infants:
1. That Infants were born without Original ſin.
2. That they were Baptized not to be freed from Original ſin, but thereby to be Adopted into the Kingdom of God, as was before noted out of Auſt.
There are yet remaining 4 or 5 trifling Arguments to prove the Ancient Britains did oppoſe the Baptizing Infants.
1. Becauſe they received the Chriſtian Faith, Doctrine and Diſcipline from the Apoſtles and Aſiatick-Churches, who hath no ſuch thing as Baptizing Infants amongſt them as you have largely heard] When the Magdeburgenſes tell us expreſly, that it was in uſe in the Aſiatick Churches. Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. In this Age they ſay, Baptiſmus Infantibus datur—Children were Baptized: and this we have abundantly ſhewn before from the Teſtimony of Cyprian.
2. Becauſe it appears they ſo fully priſed, and faithfully adhered to the Scriptures, &c. And no ſuch thing is to be found there] This is the old Objection which we have often anſwered. See Chap. 1. Part 1 of our Anſwer. So Chap 5. Part 2.
3. Becauſe they did ſo vehemently reject Human-Traditions, in the Worſhip of God, eſpecially all Romiſh-Innovations, Rites, and Ceremoneis] We find no ſuch vehemency of ſpirit in the Story as the Author ſpeaks of, unleſs it was againſt Auſtin's pride; or beacuſe Auſtin ſhewed them not that honour which their own proud hearts expected. And whereas he ſaith, they ſo rejected Romiſh Rites, but Infant-Baptiſm came from Romes Ordination and Impoſition] This is pittifully poor, for it was practiſed as we have ſhewn in Africa and Aſia hundreds of years before this time, e're any Popes as Univerſal Biſhops were in being. It was practiſed in Tertullian's and Cyprian's days, this none denyes.
5. Becauſe Conſtantine the Great, the Son of Conſtance and Helena (both Chriſtians) born in Britain in the year 305. was not Baptized till Aged, as before. And we have before given you the reaſon why his Baptiſm was put off. I refer the Reader to Chap. 7. Part 1. of my Anſwer; you have it in Cent. 4. p. 18.
5. Becauſe of the Correſpondency and Unity, that was betwixt the French Chriſtians, afterward called Waldenſes, and them. And for this very reaſon if we had none elſe, we conclude the Britains were for Infant-Baptiſm, becauſe the Waldenſes were, as we have ſufficiently made appear. There is one Reaſon more ſo weak that I think not meet to ſay thing to it; and in reference to the confidence of my Antagoniſt, that the Waldenſes, Donatiſts, Britains were all againſt Infant-Baptiſm, when neither of them were.
I ſhall conclude with a Diſtich, which I think may not improperly be applyed to his whole Diſcourſe;
Ridiculus tandem ecce cavis mus prodit ab antris,
Quem gravidi Montes parturiere diu.